Will Britain be Part of the European Union in 2017?

British Prime Minister David Cameron in a speech last week disused his conservative party plans for the future of Britain’s membership in the European Union (EU).

He has told the British voters, and put other European countries on notice that if his government is elected for a second term, he will ask the British people to decide in a referendum by 2017 if Britain should stay in the EU or leave.

This decision by Cameron comes after disagreement on reforms being discussed by member states on how to solve the Euro crises and improve the workings of the EU system.

After much criticism from both the Labor party and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who opposes any such referendum on the issue, Cameron argued that the British people should be given the change to decided once and for all, if they the people should agree to the European settlement, which they had not much say on, or should Britain abandon the relationship with Europe.

I have to agree with Nick Clegg who said that putting a referendum to the people would cause "years of uncertainty" and would not be in the national interest. Britain would be better off sticking with the EU during these tough times and show the rest of Europe that they will not abandon them. In the long run, Europe will probably come out stronger after the Euro crises as they have done in the past.

Also, staying a member of the EU will benefit Britain in the future because in economic or political crises, Britain may need the help of other European countries, who would turn their backs if snubbed by Britain at a time of renewed cooperation.

I hope that for Britain’s sake that either Cameron comes to his sensors or the people vote to stay in the EU.             

How can the International Community Support Mali?

On the 11thJanuary this year French troops where sent to intervene in Mali, where the ragtag Malian forces have been fighting Islamist rebels who have taken control of much of the north of the country.

The Mali government under the interim President Dioncounda Traore, who came to power after a military coup in early 2012 to replace former President Amadou Toumani Toure, have been in a losing battle with a well equipped Islamist rebel groups. The Islamists have links to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

Over the last few months the Malian army have prevented the Islamists from gaining further ground in the south of the country, but with division in both the army and government, rebel forces have moved within a couple of hundred kilometers from the capital Bamako.

This sudden advance by Islamist forces alarmed the international community, especially ex-colonial power French who are worried that Mali would become a terrorist safe haven in the middle of North Africa, if the Islamist takes control of the capital.

French sent an initial force of about 800 troops, with afurther 2000 to be sent over the next few weeks. Also some African nations have forwarded the plans to send a contingent of about 3000-4000 troops to Mali as part of a United Nations approved mission. On top of French forces, the US and other European nations have offered logistical support.

Over the last week since French and the rest of the international community has actively intervened in Mali on the request of the Mali governemt, there has been much discussion on how to deal with the problems in Mali and more respectively North Africa where there is a growing spread of Islamist groups linked to terrorist activities.

The western nations in Europe and the US do not have the stomach, even man power due to conflict in Afghanistan to commit large amount of resources to combat Islamist forces in Mali and North Africa.

The plan by the international community is indicating that they will help train the Malian army and the other African forces due to arrive as part of a UN mission, and offer logistical support. Although this strategy applies to the understanding that African nations have to rely on themselves to combat issues of weak government and Islamist activities in the region, but history tells us that relying on African nations to deal  with the many issues in Africa with only limited support from the international community will not solve the long term problems.

On the other hand European powers have in the past made Africa as it is today, but I think that if Africa, especially North African nations are to develop free from weak governments and civil war, western countries may need to take a larger role in actively supporting a better future for the people of Africa, including sending more then just a hand full of advisers and military trainers.    

Egypt’s revolution for democracy seems to be sliding back to a Military dictatorship

Over the last few weeks ten of thousands of Egyptians and opposition parties have been protesting against former Brotherhood member and now President Mohammed Morsi, who on November 22, announced a decree giving himself sweeping powers, including oversight over the judiciary. All these powers were written into a new constitution, which will be put to a referendum on the 15^th December. Although, since last Sunday, the President has annulled some of the sweeping powers including the oversight over the judiciary, but many still stand.

Furthermore, the Army has been given increased authority toarrest protesters and to protect state institutions, meaning that police powers have further decreased with the military taking over much of the security in Cairo.

In my opinion it seems that Egypt may slide back to military rule because of the new authority for the military to arrest civilians. This may further occur if the constitutional referendum goes a head on the 15^th of December, where the new constitution will likely gain a majority supporting the document including the new powers for the President. If this does happen as predicted, the opposition will probably step up its protests against the President Morsi and his ruling Freedom and Justice Party, which could bring further violent divisions between the Islamic Brotherhood supporters and the more moderate sections of society. With increased violence on the streets and political divisions could force the military to step in once more to solve the issue and retake control of Egypt.

For the hundreds of Egyptians killed in the 2011 revolution and the people still fighting for democracy, I hope that a solution to the crises can be found and Egypt can rebuild after decades of dictatorship. 

Obama Wins second term

In the last few hours the United States of America voted Barack Obama for another four year term as President. He has passed the the magic number of 270 electoral college votes, even though the final count has not finished. It looks like Obama will win quite convincingly, which underscores how much the American voters distrust Mitt Romney and his conservative policies.

I am glad that Obama has won a second term. From my understanding of American politics and society, an individual President needs at least two terms to make an impact in terms of change and prosperity.

Although many Americans critisised Obama on the economic situation in the US, I think that he has done as good as a job as anyone else would have, given the mess that was past to him from the Bush administration. The economy seems to be improving with a lowering of the unemployment rate over the last few months.

Obama over the last four years has achieved some good steps for change including withdrawing American troops from Iraq, has put in place a planned timetable for withdrawal of coalition forces from Afghanistan by 2014 and has produced a health care policy that so many past Presidents have failed to achieve.

Lets hope Obama over the next four years can bring America out of its economic down turn and achieve more remarkable change for the US.     

     

The United Nations Millennium Development Goals on Education have been unrealistic

The other day, I read an interesting news article by the BBC discussing the issue of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) on education and if these goals will be achieved by 2015.

Back in 2000, international leaders pledged that all children in the world would receive a primary education by 2015, but a recent report published by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO) state that the goal will not be achievable by 2015.

Although the report argues that the amount of children receiving a basic primary education has increased since 2000, this has only happened in some parts of the world and not all. There are large parts of Africa that have seen no major increase in children receiving primary education.

Like all ideas, enthusiasm was there at the beginning, but as time passes, the will of the people achieving a conclusion fades over time (these people been the world leaders, and even us as global citizens). 

Perhaps, the goal of achieving universal primary education in 15 years was a little ambitious, and as history has shown, grand expectations take more then 15 years to achieve. Just look at the development of most industrial nations, it took more then a couple of decades to go from poverty to industrial powerhouses.

Funding and good governance seems to be the main problem in reaching the MDG on education. As the BBC article mentions, world leaders have been preoccupied with recent economic down turn and fighting terrorism, rather then increasing funding for global education. Also, a lack of good governance in many parts of the world has undermined much of the achievements so far. The persistence of war and corruption in especially Africa has prevented further efforts to achieve the goals setout by world leaders in 2000.

I think that we can provide universal primary education in the near future, but we need to be realistic on the time frame and the challengers ahead. There is no use for governments promising large amounts of money, without securing a framework to deal with issues such as good governance, peace and security, and global cooperation. 

What is going on with our politicians in Canberra?

Every week it seems that the Parliament house has become a school ground for bullying and personal attacks. Over the last few months, if not since Julia Gillard and Tony Abbot became the leaders of their parties, personal attacks have taken over debate, instead of issues that matter to most Australians.

Parliamentary sittings are becoming the soap opera that is Home and Away and Neighbours.

Last week, in light of the resignation of the House of Representatives Speaker Peter Slipper, who has been accused of sexual assault, by one of his male staff, the Parliament became a place where both Gillard and Abbot once again contrived to personal attacks. This time in a speech to Parliament, Gillard accused Abbot of sexism and of been a misogynist.

Although, I do agree with Gillard that Abbot does have a history of sexist comments and actions that where mentioned in her speech, I do think that all of these personal attacks by both parties need to come to an end. All sides of politics should be debating real issues facing the nation, rather then petty political point scoring that we have witnessed over the last few months.

Australia’s bid for seat in the United Nations Security Council

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Foreign Minster Bob Carr was in New York attending the annual United Nation (UN) leaders meeting last week, where they have been trying to gain support from other nations for Australia’s bid for a temporary two year non-permanent seat on the United Nation Security Council (UNSC).

Australia is bidding for a seat against Luxembourg and Finland. Both these nations began their campaigns to gain a seat eight years before Australia, giving them a clear advantage in drumming up support from other countries. Both Gillard and Carr are not letting this advantage halt Australia’s own chances of winning, arguing that Australia has a good record when it comes to participation in the UN, with many successful contributions to Peacekeeping operations in the past.  

As usual in politics, the campaign has not been without a few critics. Opposition leader Tony Abbot  criticised the bid,saying that Ms Gillard should be in Jakarta talking to the Indonesian government about the more important issue of stopping the boats, rather then trying to bid for a costly UNSC seat. Abbot went further, saying that “Australia’s pursuit of the temporary seat was a waste of money and distorted the nation’s foreign policy priorities.”

Although the campaign to gain a temporary seat cost an estimated $55 million, in my opinion the money spent will be worth it. Australia has as much of a good chance of winning the seat as the two other bidding nations. Australia has a good UN record, with regular contributions to peacekeeping operations and campaigning on behalf of smaller nations in the international community. Furthermore a UNSC seat would give Australia influence in some of the major global decisions that could be in the national interest both in our economy and diplomatic relations (such as, a long term, internationally coordinated plan of how to "stop the boats").

We will need to wait until October 18th when all 198 member states cast a secret ballot to decide who gains the Security Council seats.